I don’t know why, but it triggered something in myself that I would like to share here as well.

Let me again come back to constructivism: all these approaches and methods reflect the mental models of their conceptors. As such, they’re perfectly adapted to whoever created them along with the context in which they were primarily intended for.

Biomatrix seems the more systeMAtic of all those I’ve encountered, with this respect.

Now, I question the practicality of such highly sophisticated approaches. How do you teach them to people?

I don’t question their usefulness in bringing further understanding of a situation and consequently improving if with less unintended consequences than if no approach would have been used instead. But the more sophisticated an approach is, the more difficult it will me, IMO to “sell” it to some organization, either externally from a consultancy perspective or internally.

All these approaches try to do is help creating a model of a problem or situation in order to improve it. From basic principles (causal loops diagrams, DSRP…) to more sophisticated ones (Biomatrix, SoSM (System of Systems Methodology), etc.) they try to be as close as possible to reality, yet without fully embracing it (for it would be reality itself, not a map of it!) So, here again, we’re in constructivism: that of the creators of the aforementioned methods, and that of the people making up a system we would like to study/improve using one of those methods.

I have two personal convictions.

The first one is that a system is its best map and that the (future) solution to its problems is already embedded i it, even if invisible for now.

The second one is that you have to make a tradeoff somewhere between having a very good (ie matching the variety of the system) method to help a system see what solution would work for it, and a simple enough method that can be taught and explain to people making up the system. Too simple, it might not bring any insight, too complicated, it will be dismissed before even using it.

If really needed, I can revert to some very simple models (that I use as a checklist) to help ensure some basic elements of an organization have been considered. For instance, McKinsey’s 7S might be helpful sometimes (and I don’t go further than what Wikipedia).

The fact is that a system is what it is, composed of most importantly (to me) its autonomous (sub)parts: humans. And humans construct their own reality, so instead of trying to box them into some different reality, I think we need to help them see their own boxes and help them connect them all so that they do something that matters and makes sense to themselves.

Don’t try to understand in too much details what they mean of what they want. Trust them to know better than you’d ever could. Lead them in the trouble waters of where they are to the clarity of where they would like to be. Let them identify the impediments on the way. Let them identify their strengths. Let them identify their own solutions (most of them they have *already* experimented to some extent – solution focus!). Then let them decide what path would work best for them and help them maintain the direction they chose. And then help them identify when they arrived at their destination so they can congratulate themselves.

And don’t even get me into change resistance, because that’s what a sophisticated method will probably trigger anyway!

This year (2012) was the first edition of Lean Kanban France. David Shaked and myself facilitated a workshop about “strength-based kanban” to be used both as a tool and metaphor to boost one’s own coaching skills (whether to coach Lean or Kanban… or whatever!).

Here are the documents:

slides,

1st generation handout (interview guide used for people to interview each other during the workshop)

and 2nd generation version of a strength-based kanban which you are encouraged to use, improve

…all the while to keep us informed of what great things you did with it!

Meanwhile, should you like to participate in the strength-based (r)evolution of Lean, feel free to join others on the Strength-Based Lean Six Sigma LinkedIn discussion group.

What’s interesting in this article is that it’s not another one on how to start a new businesss (there are plenty of those like The Lean Startup or Business Model Generation for instance). Although the article does give a glance at the process, it focusses more on what are those behaviors that makes entrepreneurs successful.

What I feared first was that they would identify people’s Strengths, as per their Strength Finder survey, for that would condemn (self-fulfilling prophecy) those not having the proper strengths to try at being an entrepreneur.

Rather, they took the “behavior” perspective that allows everybody to imagine how they build on their strengths to replicate these successful behaviors.

Somehow, I can’t help but relate this classroom story with what happens in organizations. People are under constant monitoring from their boss, not by him constantly watching over their shoulder (though, sometimes…) but because of that more or less mean year-end review. You know you’ll be evaluated, a bit on what you did done right, but mostly about what you did wrong or not good enough and that you’re supposed to improve next year. Indeed, your bonus relies on that evaluation (despite it not being the most motivating factor)

Doesn’t it look like the same as in school? No wonder there’s so few people engaged at work! Besides, pushing people toward some forced behaviors is a sure way to make them resist. Doesn’t everybody in the change business knows that by now?

You can read about our common presentation (and that of others) on the LKFR Speakers page. We intend to do a highly interactive session, à la workshop where we hope attendees will get back home with a huge number of ideas that will work for them.

Our intervention will be a “Hands-on experience on Strength-based Kanban: a Metaphor and Tool to boost your lean implementation coaching skills.”

The agenda and list of speakers is incredible, make sure you come exchange with us!

Share this:

This is great news! Gallup, one of the world reknown Strengths assessment company is now offering people the opportunity to buy a code to assess their strengths. Before that, people had to buy the book first.

Of course, this is not up to par with VIA character strengths which offer their assessment for free, but still, it’s better that way!